• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.36-65
• /
• 2000

The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing the international carriage by air of passenger, baggage and cargo. The introduction of a considerable number of modernized major elements including electric ticketing system, the unlimited passenger liability regime and a supplementary (fifth) jurisdiction should help to remove aged scheme that now exists in the Warsaw Convention and other related instruments. The key issue of the electric ticketing system recognized by the Convention IS how to describe reasonably and adequately the terms of written notices, in the light of the principle of consumer protection. Regarding liability regime for passengers, an unlimited passenger liability regime is realized. The carrier, in the first tier, is subject to a strict liability regime of up to 100,000 SDRs, and in the second tire, a regime of presumed fault liability without numerical liability limits. To add to the present four fora, the fifth forum is permitted. Regarding damage resulting the death or injury of a passenger, an action for damages may also be brought in its home territory with the considerably qualified narrow requirements. A strange deviation from the well-established "Procedure for Approval of Draft Convention" carried out by the Legal Committee left a considerable number of unrefined and incomplete passages. In the near future, their modification should be required.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 1994

Clearly there are many legal arguments and criticisms surrounding the proposals for change in the Warsaw Convention and the need for a radical review. The question remains is unlimited liability the answer or should there be some other form of supplemental compensation and if so, what limits should be applicable. It does seem that the adopted limits of the Convention are seen by many as the first line of defence, which, dependent on political and cultural differences, the legal interpretation of contractual wording and the legal system globally have resulted in enormous differences in compensation paid whether or not the Convention limits were imposed. An example of this is in the United States, which highlights the significance of the problem in that domestic travellers without Convention Limits can, through the American legal system, obtain compensation in the multi-million dollar area for a death claim, whereas a passenger t1ying internationally would in the first instance be subject to Convention Limits. expensive legal action through litigation. To date, we can advise that insurers have not charged additional premium for unlimited liability coverage. Insurance rates as we have stated are hardening considerably. To date, average rate increases have been plus 56% for aircraft hull and plus 45% for liabilities. Insurers last year suffered global losses of around US $ 1.1 Billion against a premium income of US $ 800,000. The target premium income for 1993 is believed to be in the region of US $1.4 Billion.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.195-225
• /
• 2009

One of the most significant additions to the Warsaw Convention liability system, brought about by the coming into force of the Montreal Convention 1999(MC 99), was the creation of the new so-called fifth jurisdiction, whereby an Article 17 action for damages for passanger bodily injury or death only, may be brought at the option of the claimant/plaintiff. The fifth jurisdiction-the pernanent residence of the passenger at the time of the accident,provided that the carrier has a specified business presence in that jurisdiction-was one of the provisions of MC99 that provoked the most debate at the Montreal Conference leading to the adoption of MC99. Some scholars in China fear that the fifth jurisdiction will be abused after the MC99 came into force to China in 2005. The present article argues that the fifth jurisdiction would not be abused as long as such international private doctrines as forum non-conveniens are applied by the trial court appropriately. The article also points out that the challenge before the legislative body of China is to amend the civil aviation law and other related laws so that to solve the conflicts among the laws and meet the obligations provided by the MC99.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2007

This article is dedicated to my colleague and friend Professor Soon-Kil Hong, Ph.D, who is the famous President of the Korean Association of Air and Space Law and distinguished teacher at the prestigious Hankuk Aviation University. I had the honour and pleasure to teach there a few years ago - upon his gracious invitation. Professor Soon-Kil Hong has made a long, outstanding and impressive career in aviation and space activities, both from a practitioners and academic perspective. That is why I have tried to find a subject which addresses these facets of his personality although this humble article cannot do justice to the great merits of Professor Soon-Kil Hong. This article discusses the liability aspects for damages and injuries to passengers on suborbital flights, by examining: 1. Recent developments regarding space tourism 2. Suborbital flights in relation to the Chicago Convention 3. The application of space law treaties to space tourism 4. Potential candidates for liability regimes applying to space tourism 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Liability under international space law 4.2.1 The Outer Space Treaty (1969) 4.2.2 The Liability Convention (1972) 4.2.3 Conclusions 4.3 Liability under international private air law 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 The Warsaw Convention (1929), as variously amended 4.3.3 The Montreal Agreement (1999) 4.3.4 Conclusions 5. Final observations

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2009

The Rome Convention System (1933, 1952, 1978) which deal the third party lability relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface have not been so effective and successful like the Warsaw Convention System. This paper briefs the development of the Rome Convention System and the reasons of their failure which are the low level of the limit of liability and non-parties of major civil aviation states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and etc. The Diplomatic Conference hosted by ICAO at Montreal during April 20 to May 2 has successfully produced two Conventions; One is Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties (General Risk Convention), the other is Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference involving Aircraft (Unlawful Interference Convention). The major contents and some problems of these two Conventions are reviewed in comparison with the exisiting Rome Convention System and other legal system. Particularly, the entrance into force of the Unlawful Interference Convention may take some time, at least more than 5 years, due to the realistic problems arising from the operation of International Civil Aviation Fund.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2008

According to 1944 Chicago Convention aircraft are classified into public aircraft(or state aircraft) and private aircraft(or civil aircraft). However even if public aircraft owned by government are used as commercial flights, those are classified into private aircraft. But as far as space activities are concerned in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, those are related to all activities and all space objects, thus there being no differentiation between the public spacecraft and private spacecraft. As for the institutions of air law there are ICAO, IATA, ECAC, AFCAC, ACAC, LACAC in the world. However in the field of space law there is no International Civil Space Organization like ICAO. There is only COPUOS in the United Nations. The particular institutions such as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, ITU, WIPO, ESA, ARABSAT would be helpful to space law field. In the near future there is a need to establish International Civil Space Organization to cover problems rising from all space activities. According to article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It means that absolute airspace sovereignty is recognized by not only the treaty law and but also customary law which regulates non-contracting States to the treaty. However as for the space law in the article n of the 1967 Space Treaty outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. It creates res extra commercium like the legal status of high seas in the law of the sea. However the 1979 Moon Agreement proclaimed Common Heritage of Mankind as far as the legal status of the outer space is concerned which is like the legal status of deep sea-bed in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea. As far as the liabilities of air transport system are concerned there are two kinds. One is the liabilities to passenger on board aircraft and the other is the liabilities to the third person or thing on the ground by the aircraft. The former is regulated by the Warsaw System, the latter by the Rome Convention. As for the liabilities of space law the 1972 Liability Convention applies. The Rome Convention and 1972 Liability Convention stipulate absolute liability. In the field of space transportation there would be new liability system to regulate the space passengers on board spacecraft like Warsaw System in the air transportation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

The Korean government enacted the Chapter 6 as of Air Transportation to the Korean Commercial Act, which was enforced in 2011, in order to treat some arguments occurred from air transportation Contracts since air transportations has rapidly increased in Korea. Air transportations has been used more in the field of international market than in the field of domestic market under it's own characteristic. Therefore, many international agreements and protocols related to the air transportations has been appeared from old times and the 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") is one of them. The Montreal Convention was adopted in May 28, 1999 at International Conference of Air Law hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") in Montreal, Canada where the Headquarter of ICAO is located. The Montreal Convention has been effected from September 5, 2003 and the Korean government ratified the convention in 2007. Therefore, the Montreal Convention came in to force in Korea since 2007. This year, 2017, is the 10th anniversary year since the Montreal Convention has taken effect in Korea. However, there are rare cases that argued the Montreal Convention's scope of application and this Article examines the Korean Supreme Court's case that argued the Convention's scope of application. Thus the Article basically analyzes the case from the perspective of the Montreal Convention's scope of application and examines the Montreal Convention's articles related to the air carrier's liability and extent of compensation for damage that occurred from the international carriage by air. Also this Article analyzes the Korean Commercial Act Chapter 6, which regulated the air carrier's liability and the Article tries to make a comparison between the Montreal Convention and the Korean Commercial Act in order to draw some scheme for the betterment of Korean Commercial Act. It is the hope that the Article contribute to the improvement of Korean Commercial Act through the comparison with the chance of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention in Korea.